From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarod Wilson Subject: Re: [Patch net 3/3] team: use a larger struct for mac address Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:46:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3f48c69c-3ff4-f895-3c0f-2e8c9c5f063a@redhat.com> References: <1493183003-884-1-git-send-email-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <1493183003-884-4-git-send-email-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> <20170426054033.GA1867@nanopsycho.orion> <7103fb6b-2483-37c0-48e5-19aa9fd4f386@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Pirko , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Andrey Konovalov To: Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:45084 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751422AbdDZQqg (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:46:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2017-04-26 12:11 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote: >> >> We already have struct sockaddr_storage that could be used throughout this >> set as well. We just converted a few pieces of the bonding driver over to >> using it for better support of ipoib bonds, via commit >> faeeb317a5615076dff1ff44b51e862e6064dbd0. Might be better to just use that >> in both bonding and team, rather than having different per-driver structs, >> or Yet Another Address Storage implementation. > > Technically, struct sockaddr_storage is not enough either, given the > max is MAX_ADDR_LEN. This is why I gave up on sockaddr_storage. Wait, what? Am I missing something? MAX_ADDR_LEN is 32, and sockaddr_storage is a #define for __kernel_sockaddr_storage, which has it's __data member defined as being of size 128 - sizeof(unsigned short). -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.com